Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: :1: Ch.Sum. No.524/2018 in Sum. Suit No.1238/2016
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 524 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010037422018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1238 OF 2016
Jayarajan Ramakrishnan ...Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Vinod G. Yadav ...Defendant
Appearances:
Advocate Mrs. Shashikala for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Kharatmol for defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.28)
DATED : 12th JUNE, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Perused application and reply. Defendant has stated that by
letter dated 16th May, 2017 he informed C.A. of plaintiff that Suit
number nor the Court number in which the matter is filed against him is
mentioned and also not provided any information regarding the date of
hearing. Defendant has further stated that he informed C.A. of plaintiff
that Exparte order obtained by plaintiff will not be binding upon him
due to negligence in providing him complete detail of the suit filed
against him. It is pertinent to see that it is not depend on the plaintiff
giving any information of suit as to whether Exparte will be binding on
the defendant or not. Therefore, the contention of defendant that
plaintiff should have informed about filing of suit separately is without
any substance.
-- 1 of 4 --
:2: Ch.Sum. No.524/2018 in Sum. Suit No.1238/2016
2. It is pertinent to see according to defendant he himself informed
by letter dated 16th May, 2017 to the C.A. of plaintiff to provide
complete information regarding suit number but defendant has
preferred to file present Chamber Summons for condonation of delay in
filing appearance in March, 2018. Hence, it is apparent that though
since May, 2017 defendant was knowing that suit is filed against him
still he did not take efforts for more than 8 months in filing appearance
in the suit as per Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil.
3. It appears defendant has produced reply dated 16.09.2017
informing to him by plaintiff about this summary suit. It is pertinent to
see that since September, 2017 also defendant did not promptly took
efforts to file Chamber Summons till February, 2018 i.e. more than 4
months he kept silence.
4. Plaintiff has stated that defendant is well aware of the
proceeding of the Court. Plaintiff has stated that details of the Court
Number and case number were already given in the Writ of Summons.
Plaintiff has stated that there is delay of 409 days on the part of
defendant to file appearance. Defendant has stated that he has not
received summons of this suit. But it appears that as per the Postal
Track Report summons is served upon defendant. Therefore, contention
of defendant that he did not receive suit summons is not believable one.
5. As discussed above the reasons stated by defendant that he has
not received summons of the suit alongwith other reasons stated in the
application are not satisfactory to set aside Exparte order passed
against defendant. It appears that defendant is trying to delay the
proceeding by not appearing within time. There are no reasonable
-- 2 of 4 --
:3: Ch.Sum. No.524/2018 in Sum. Suit No.1238/2016
grounds to set aside Exparte Order passed against defendant. Hence,
following order :
O R D E R
Chamber Summons No.524 of 2018 stands rejected.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 12.06.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 12.06.2019
Transcribed on : 12.06.2019
Signed on : 12.06.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
:4: Ch.Sum. No.524/2018 in Sum. Suit No.1238/2016
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
15.06.2019 At 5:40 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
12.06.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 12.06.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 15.06.2019
-- 4 of 4 --